why are we here

the idea is to take suo motu control over situations that have a bearing on our lives. 'suomotu' would mean this has come on our own motion. the question is 'was this required', and let's answer it in a strong 'yes'. legislators, public figures, analysts can no longer decide our fate or the way we judge events; we are free, equal, accountable to our own good. here we come to discuss, to decide and to persuade.

the case for shashi tharoor as india’s president

this argument can be very simple- the republic of india hasn’t had a presidential office occupied by a young, energetic person, although almost every past president was capable and learned enough in her/ his own domain. but the question is- has the office been utilized in full capacity to add to the productivity of country’s socio-economic and political landscape?

the constitution of india vests multiple powers in the head of the state, though people view her only as a person capable to grant pardon to the convicted. what about diplomacy?

diplomacy or soft power is the key to ascendance of any country. do not forget the role of american burger and jeans in escalating the influence of united states all around the world. in case only military prowess defined the balance of power, soviet union and america would have, until today, enjoyed the bipolar distribution of power, in actuality it was america’s cultural influence that ended the cold war decisively in its favor.

until recently it was debated that india would displace america as the superpower by 2020, the sad truth is that the country isn’t even counted as one in asia. you can read international political magazines and india would hardly be seen as a pivotal force in asia or even south asia.

when the world leaders condemned chemical attack in syria or deliberated strict action on north korea, india refrained from making any significant statements owing to country’s compulsion in keeping itself aloof from any upheavals so as to steer clear of controversy or inviting any adversaries.

while india’s prime minister is seen as the flagbearer of india’s diplomacy, the task should wisely be left to the president who plays virtually no role in executive and legislature. a president on a diplomatic mission for five years to upgrade india’s standing within the international community is a better position as compared to a president only complying with executive’s diktats in promulgating ordinances.

india is the fastest growing major economy, a significant contributor to peacekeeping missions and is the largest arms importer, with a substantially large military force; the sad truth is that we are totally written off when it comes to international diplomacy.

a person with such rich know-how and operational experience as shashi tharoor can be the best man to change this dismal position; not to say a win-win condition for the present government to circumvent the wrath of united opposition. turning presidential office into a more productive one, functioning at full capacity, for the next five years is a simple rationale to elect shashi throor as india’s head of state.